Thorkildsen v. Belden, 269 P.3d 421

Fifth appeal: district court ordered Thorkildsen to receive $77,475 in attorney fees as previously directed by the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Earlier litigation began in 2004 with Belden and Fish Creek alleging breach of the LLC agreement and loan payments; numerous appeals followed.
In 2011, this Court in Thorkildsen II determined the fee amount and remanded for entry of the fee award.
On remand, Thorkildsen sought a seven percent prejudgment interest on the fee award, which the district court denied as inconsistent with the Supreme Court mandate.
The Court held the attorney-fee award was not a liquidated claim and thus prejudgment interest was not permissible under Wyoming law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prejudgment interest on the attorney fee award is allowed.	Thorkildsen contends the award is liquidated and interest should accrue.	Belden/defendant argues no prejudgment interest under mandate and controlling law.	Not entitled; fee award not liquidated; prejudgment interest not allowed.
Whether the district court properly foreclosed prejudgment interest based on the Supreme Court’s mandate.	Thorkildsen argues mandate does not preclude interest.	Belden contends mandate forecloses interest.	Correct; Stewart Title analysis does not apply here; no prejudgment interest.

Pennant Service Co., Inc. v. True Oil Co., LLC, 249 P.3d 698 (Wyoming, 2011) (prejudgment interest available on liquidated claims)
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Tilden, 181 P.3d 94 (Wyoming, 2008) (prejudgment interest on attorney fees under Insurance Code; not controlling here)
Weiss v. Weiss, 217 P.3d 408 (Wyoming, 2009) (lodestar factors for attorney-fee reasonable review)
Forshee v. Delaney, 118 P.3d 445 (Wyoming, 2005) (factors for reasonableness of attorney fees)
Dewey v. Wentland, 38 P.3d 402 (Wyoming, 2002) (equitable control over fee recovery; not automatic)
Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 208 P.3d 1296 (Wyoming, 2009) (discretion to determine damages without remand)